Forgiveness or Remission?

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I believe that is referring to a paraphrase he did in which he substituted condonare for what he had previously written as remittere (as also the Vulgate). But in another place he uses remittere (I believe in Luke).

It looks like the issue is using the English remit in his paraphrase, in Luke and perhaps Matthew (and that paraphrase may have a similar note).

===========================

Paraphrase on the Gospel According to Luke (2016)
Jane E. Phillips
https://books.google.com/books?id=ORb8CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA228

Having said all this to the Pharisee, the Lord turned to the woman and said, 'Your sins are remitted.' She had not made any prayer, she had not confessed anything in words, but she did confess more clearly in her actions, she did pray more effectively with her tears. This is the confession most welcome to Christ. By prayers of this kind is he most easily moved to mercy. Happy are the tears, happy the expenditure on perfume, happy the kisses that wrest these words from Jesus: 'Your sins are remitted.' For he does not forgive some and retain others but forgives them all at once, imputing nothing at all of a former life to the sincere penitent.65

65 'Forgive [sin]' in the paraphrase on verses 42-9 is either condonare or remittere (the latter here translated 'remit'). The Vulgate Gospel text had used donate for the forgiveness of loans in verses 42-3 and then remittere and dimittere once each in verse 47, followed by remittere when Jesus addresses the woman in verse 48 and when the other guests question his action in verse 49. Remittere appears once more in the paraphrase on verse 50, where it means 'send,' at 'send her home.' For Erasmus' dissatisfaction with traditional ecclesiastical preference for dimittere, cf chapter 6 n40.

===========================

As for the controversy with John Batmanson on this issue, Thomas More siding with Erasmus, that will be in Erasmus and his Catholic Critics, p. 118-119, and might give more insight as to how the English text remit was controversial. In google books, it is available only in snippet mode. It is available in libraries, and a good project would be to take a picture of the two pages.

Since remit also means to "send back", which is not in forgive, I think there is a wider semantic range to remit, in the 1500s to today. When you send something back, it is like it never happened.

And I may have to do some more study, including this thread.
So far I do not agree with any idea that the words are identical synonyms.

===========================

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

It looks like the issue is using the English remit in his paraphrase, in Luke and perhaps Matthew (and that paraphrase may have a similar note).

===========================

Paraphrase on the Gospel According to Luke (2016)
Jane E. Phillips
https://books.google.com/books?id=ORb8CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA228

Having said all this to the Pharisee, the Lord turned to the woman and said, 'Your sins are remitted.' She had not made any prayer, she had not confessed anything in words, but she did confess more clearly in her actions, she did pray more effectively with her tears. This is the confession most welcome to Christ. By prayers of this kind is he most easily moved to mercy. Happy are the tears, happy the expenditure on perfume, happy the kisses that wrest these words from Jesus: 'Your sins are remitted.' For he does not forgive some and retain others but forgives them all at once, imputing nothing at all of a former life to the sincere penitent.65

65 'Forgive [sin]' in the paraphrase on verses 42-9 is either condonare or remittere (the latter here translated 'remit'). The Vulgate Gospel text had used donate for the forgiveness of loans in verses 42-3 and then remittere and dimittere once each in verse 47, followed by remittere when Jesus addresses the woman in verse 48 and when the other guests question his action in verse 49. Remittere appears once more in the paraphrase on verse 50, where it means 'send,' at 'send her home.' For Erasmus' dissatisfaction with traditional ecclesiastical preference for dimittere, cf chapter 6 n40.

===========================

As for the controversy with John Batmanson on this issue, Thomas More siding with Erasmus, that will be in Erasmus and his Catholic Critics, p. 118-119, and might give more insight as to how the English text remit was controversial. In google books, it is available only in snippet mode. It is available in libraries, and a good project would be to take a picture of the two pages.

Since remit also means to "send back", which is not in forgive, I think there is a wider semantic range to remit, in the 1500s to today. When you send something back, it is like it never happened.

And I may have to do some more study, including this thread.
So far I do not agree with any idea that the words are identical synonyms.

===========================

Well, I'm not sure any synonyms are "identical" 100%. There is a reason for the existence of different words. But both remission and forgiveness are suitable translations of the Greek aphesis. Remission because it is a release or sending back of a debt, and forgiveness because to remit a debt is to forgive it. So I'm not seeing any reason to think that remission and forgiveness aren't the same thing being looked at from slightly different perspectives. There certainly is no basis for the UPC (and copycat ALJC) idea that forgiveness occurs as a wholly separate event distinct from remission.

[diakonos]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Well, I'm not sure any synonyms are "identical" 100%. There is a reason for the existence of different words. But both remission and forgiveness are suitable translations of the Greek aphesis. Remission because it is a release or sending back of a debt, and forgiveness because to remit a debt is to forgive it. So I'm not seeing any reason to think that remission and forgiveness aren't the same thing being looked at from slightly different perspectives. There certainly is no basis for the UPC (and copycat ALJC) idea that forgiveness occurs as a wholly separate event distinct from remission.

Agree with you on this.

My first pastor taught that forgiveness and remission were not the same- his reasoning for people receiving the Holy Ghost before baptism.

By taught, I mean preached.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Esaias

There certainly is no basis for the UPC (and copycat ALJC) idea that forgiveness occurs as a wholly separate event distinct from remission.

Nothing about this in this thread. I did not check the earlier one.

[good samaritan]

My response was on how to obtain forgiveness/remission

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Now, it is time for the other side to present a simple Bible study. I have done such, I have presented Bible passages that teach what I am saying here. Now it is time for the other side (especially the pastor) to present a simple straightforward Bible study establishing their doctrine (teaching):

We need a Bible study that does the following:

1. Proves that the Bible teaches a difference between remission and forgiveness, and what that difference is.

2. Prove that the Bible teaches people receive forgiveness of sins before being baptised.

There's a few other things that need to be proven by Scripture, but we can start with these two, since the others depend on how the first two go.

Originally Posted by Esaias

Anyone?

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Luke 5:20
And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.

Jesus went about forgiving sins without any sacraments. Freely forgave with only one condition. Faith!!! We receive forgiveness upon ... faith in Jesus and his sacrifice. True faith and repentance goes hand in hand.

Romans 4:3
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

God has not changed his methods, they have been the same from the beginning. We must put our faith in God to become his children.

Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Now in regarding the sacraments of baptism.

Acts 2:37
Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

After believing the word, the believers response was immediate. They where pricked in their hearts (convicted) and asked what they must do?

True faith is going to be followed by immediate obedience. Faith that does not result in repentance, is not faith.

James 2:26
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Repentance and baptism are the response to our faith. Yeeesssss, they are necessary!!! It is not my intent at all, to devalue our downplay the necessity of water baptism. Faith requires obedience to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Matthew 28:18-20
18......And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19......Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20......Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Jesus said to spread this message to all nations and to baptize them in His name. That is exactly what Peter did.

Acts 2:38-39
38......Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39......For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Baptism is part of the obedience that is necessary of our Faith. The question: is it the sacrament itself that works unto salvation or is it our faith. May persuasion is that it is our faith.

I personally believe baptism was instituted more for our benefit than for anything else.

1 Peter 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Baptism is symbolic of the spiritual work that God is doing. Therefore we must obey, but the act of forgiveness and remission is entirely up to God. We don’t force forgiveness by sacraments. We receive forgiveness by faith that is proven by the works that follow.

James 2:18
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

In a nutshell we are probably not even in disagreement on the issue, but simply have a difference of faith explanation.

That leads to another question:

Can a person be saved without baptism?

Let me answer that with a question:

If we put our faith in Jesus as our Lord and savior, must we obey?

Yes, of course.

In the case of deathbed conversions, that is Gods decision. He is the one we will all stand before.

Originally Posted by good samaritan

My response was on how to obtain forgiveness/remission

Your post was a direct response to me bumping my request for a Bible study.

Maybe you need to try and keep up with the discussion.

[james34]

Acts 5
30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. 31Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. 32And we are his witnesses of these things; and ….so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him .

Atonement through faith by the “blood of Christ”

pro·pi·ti·a·tion :
noun
the action of propitiating or appeasing a god, spirit, or person.
"he lifted his hands in propitiation"
atonement, especially that of Jesus Christ

Romans 3
5 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness ( that is, the righteous of Jesus Christ)for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God

Colossians 1
18 And he is the head of the body, the church:who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence

Ephesians 1
22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all


The Church is the body of Christ , bought with his blood. A blood bought church.

Acts 20
28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood

….and how does one get into this blood bought body of Christ,

1 Corinthians 12
13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit

[Esaias]

Now for part 2, "When does a person receive forgiveness of sins, according to the Bible?"

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
(Act 2:38)

Peter clearly identifies that baptism is "for the remission of sins". The Greek word translated "for" is "eis" and literally means "into". He literally said "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ into the remission of sins".

Baptism is "into the remission" (or "forgiveness") of sins.

In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
(Eph 1:7)

We have redemption through the blood of Christ, "the forgiveness of sins". Clearly, forgiveness or remission of sins requires the blood of Christ. The question is, when is the blood of Christ applied to a person's life so as to remove their sins? Obviously it must be applied at some point, otherwise all people would have been automatically saved the moment Christ died and rose again, and we know that is not true, because that is universalism. So when is the blood applied? That is to say, when does a person enter into the benefits of the blood of Christ? (Notice, we must enter INTO the death of Christ, just as baptism is INTO the remission of sins...)

Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
(1Pe 1:2)

Obedience is connected to the "sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ". In order to have the blood applied, there must be some kind of obedience involved. Something is to be obeyed.

And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
(Rev 1:5)

Having the blood applied is here identified as being "washed... from our sins in His own blood". So application of the blood, the "sprinkling of the blood upon us" so to say, is also called having our sins washed from us in His blood. When does this washing of our sins take place?

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
(Mat 23:29-31)

Now, in this passage, we see that "the blood" is used to represent the "killing" or death of the prophets. So when we read of "the blood of Christ" we are reading about His death. Since the blood washes us from our sins, and since the blood is to be sprinkled upon us, since the blood must be applied to us, since we must somehow avail ourselves of the blood of Christ to receive the remission or forgiveness of sins, this all means it is His DEATH that takes care of our sins, and it is His DEATH that must be applied to us, it is His DEATH that we must somehow access. How and when is this done?

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
(Rom 6:3-11)

We access and apply the death of Christ when we are baptised! We are baptised into His death, that is to say, the blood.

Remember, we read in Revelation how Christ washes away our sins in His own blood (that is to say, by His death). So we also read this:

And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
(Act 22:16)

In baptism our sins are washed away. This is WHEN Christ washes us from our sins in His blood, this is when we are identified with Him and His death and when His death is applied to us - in baptism. Which means very simply this is when the convicted sinner has his or her sins FORGIVEN.

A person hears the Gospel, comes under conviction, and is now anxious about the condition of their soul. That is, they now understand that they are sinners, and that they need to be forgiven or pardoned, they need to be cleansed or washed from their sins. They hear that Christ died for them, that forgiveness or remission of sins is available to them (because of His death aka "the blood of His cross"). So they wonder "what must I do?"

Mere mental assent to the facts of the Gospel is not enough. Demons know all this. Demons agree all this is correct. Jesus really is the Saviour, His blood really atones for sins. But knowing that is not enough. It must become PERSONAL. His death must be applied to the individual.

At this point, the convicted sinner is going to be told what to do (in most evangelistic meetings, anyway). And the vast majority of the time they will be told to "Come forward" and make some kind of prayer. Whether it is a simple "ABC repeat after me" or whether it is a more old fashioned "Just have a talk with Jesus about your sins", it all amounts to the same thing - the sinner is told to PRAY his way to the blood.

But is that the Bible way?

NO.

Nobody in al the Bible was ever told to "come forward", nobody was ever told to "say this prayer" nor were they told to "have a time of crying and talk it out with God". Nobody was ever told to "invite Jesus into their heart" nor was anyone ever told to "accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Saviour." Instead, they are told to "repent and be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." They are told to "be baptised and wash away your sins calling on the name of the Lord". Baptism is the Biblical, apostolic "thing to do" that has been replaced by the man made "make your decision, say this prayer, cry it out at the altar rail" methods of modern religionists.

Remember we read about "obedience and sprinkling"? One is to OBEY the Gospel, this means believe it FOR REAL. Not just in your head (the belief level of demons) but in your LIFE. Real belief is ACTION. In baptism we publicly before others confess Jesus Christ, in baptism we plead the blood of Christ for the covering of our sins, in baptism we make our request to God to apply the death of Christ to our miserable sin-spotted life. In baptism we pledge ourselves to Christ, to become His disciple, His follower. In baptism we identify with the blood of Christ, and in baptism we are raised up in newness of life. In baptism we experience the remission or forgiveness or washing away of our sins.

Everything that the modern "pray Jesus into your heart" methods seek to accomplish is supplied by the Biblical method of Christian baptism.

[james34]

Why, then, do some come to the conclusion that we must be baptized in order to have our sin’s remitted ? Often, the discussion of whether or not this passage teaches baptism is required for remittance centers around the Greek word eis that is translated “for” in this passage. Those who hold to the belief that baptism is required for remittance are quick to point to this verse and the fact that it says “be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins,” assuming that the word translated “for” in this verse means “in order to get.” However, in both Greek and English, there are many possible usages of the word “for.”

As an example, when one says “Take two aspirin for your headache,” it is obvious to everybody that it does not mean “take two aspirin in order to get your headache,” but instead to “take two aspirin because you already have a headache.” There are three possible meanings of the word “for” that might fit the context of Acts 2:38: 1--“in order to be, become, get, have, keep, etc.,” 2—“because of, as the result of,” or 3—“with regard to.” Since any one of the three meanings could fit the context of this passage, additional study is required in order to determine which one is correct.

We need to start by looking back to the original language and the meaning of the Greek word eis. This is a common Greek word (it is used 1774 times in the New Testament) that is translated many different ways. Like the English word “for” it can have several different meanings. So, again, we see at least two or three possible meanings of the passage, one that would seem to support that baptism is required for forgiveness /remittance and others that would not. While both the meanings of the Greek word eis are seen in different passages of Scripture, such noted Greek scholars as A.T. Robertson and J.R. Mantey have maintained that the Greek preposition eis in Acts 2:38 should be translated “because of” or “in view of,” and not “in order to,” or “for the purpose of.”

One example of how this preposition is used in other Scriptures is seen in Matthew 12:41 where the word eis communicates the “result” of an action. In this case it is said that the people of Nineveh “repented at the preaching of Jonah” (the word translated “at” is the same Greek word eis). Clearly, the meaning of this passage is that they repented “because of’” or “as the result of” Jonah’s preaching. In the same way, it would be possible that Acts 2:38 is indeed communicating the fact that they were to be baptized “as the result of” or “because” they already had believed and in doing so had already received forgiveness of their sins (John 1:12; John 3:14-18; John 5:24; John 11:25-26; Acts 10:43; Acts 13:39; Acts 16:31; Acts 26:18; Romans 10:9; Ephesians 1:12-14). This interpretation of the passage is also consistent with the message recorded in Peter’s next two sermons to unbelievers where he associates the forgiveness of sins with the act of repentance and faith in Christ without even mentioning baptism (Acts 3:17-26; Acts 4:8-12).

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by james34

Why, then, do some come to the conclusion that we must be baptized in order to have our sin’s remitted ? Often, the discussion of whether or not this passage teaches baptism is required for remittance centers around the Greek word eis that is translated “for” in this passage. Those who hold to the belief that baptism is required for remittance are quick to point to this verse and the fact that it says “be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins,” assuming that the word translated “for” in this verse means “in order to get.” However, in both Greek and English, there are many possible usages of the word “for.”

As an example, when one says “Take two aspirin for your headache,” it is obvious to everybody that it does not mean “take two aspirin in order to get your headache,” but instead to “take two aspirin because you already have a headache.” There are three possible meanings of the word “for” that might fit the context of Acts 2:38: 1--“in order to be, become, get, have, keep, etc.,” 2—“because of, as the result of,” or 3—“with regard to.” Since any one of the three meanings could fit the context of this passage, additional study is required in order to determine which one is correct.

We need to start by looking back to the original language and the meaning of the Greek word eis. This is a common Greek word (it is used 1774 times in the New Testament) that is translated many different ways. Like the English word “for” it can have several different meanings. So, again, we see at least two or three possible meanings of the passage, one that would seem to support that baptism is required for forgiveness /remittance and others that would not. While both the meanings of the Greek word eis are seen in different passages of Scripture, such noted Greek scholars as A.T. Robertson and J.R. Mantey have maintained that the Greek preposition eis in Acts 2:38 should be translated “because of” or “in view of,” and not “in order to,” or “for the purpose of.”

One example of how this preposition is used in other Scriptures is seen in Matthew 12:41 where the word eis communicates the “result” of an action. In this case it is said that the people of Nineveh “repented at the preaching of Jonah” (the word translated “at” is the same Greek word eis). Clearly, the meaning of this passage is that they repented “because of’” or “as the result of” Jonah’s preaching. In the same way, it would be possible that Acts 2:38 is indeed communicating the fact that they were to be baptized “as the result of” or “because” they already had believed and in doing so had already received forgiveness of their sins (John 1:12; John 3:14-18; John 5:24; John 11:25-26; Acts 10:43; Acts 13:39; Acts 16:31; Acts 26:18; Romans 10:9; Ephesians 1:12-14). This interpretation of the passage is also consistent with the message recorded in Peter’s next two sermons to unbelievers where he associates the forgiveness of sins with the act of repentance and faith in Christ without even mentioning baptism (Acts 3:17-26; Acts 4:8-12).

Wow. Not only did you basically copy and paste an article straight from "GotQuestions" without attribution (plagiarism and bad form), but you changed the initial sentence from "in order to get saved" to "in order to have our sin's remitted".

Here's a link to the original article if anyone is interested:

https://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-Acts-2-38.html